What bullshit.The OWS is losing what little public support it had. So now the OWS and its MSM cheerleaders try to say OWS is like the tea party. They sound as as desperate and as clueless as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The blunder that the OWS dummies make is that they conflate Wall Street with large corporations, treating them as one and the same. They aren't. There are corporations that handle financial matters, and they're (mostly) on Wall Street. And there are corporations that make things or provide services. The latter need the former to raise capital, but if there was a way to do that without Wall Street, and without going through the government (which would allocate capital according to political clout and on no other basis) then our economy could do without Wall Street just fine.

"In return for laws and cozy regulations, the large companies give money to politicians, and promise fine high-paying jobs to politicians and their relatives outside government. And big government for the donor money also conspires to work with corporate America to keep free trade going, and mass immigration going to lower workers wages, shift production to other countries to boost the profits going to Elites. And if the game is being played to all's satisfaction - firms agree to back the pols and shut up about affirmative action, green energy, and ruinuously expensive wars of adventure."

Of course, these and another dozen lines that have both Tea Party and OWS people united in anger have to be left out because of space constraints.

""Fixing the problem" is viewed in completely irreconcilable terms by the two groups."

Not really. The Tea Party people say "fix the government side of the problem - just do not impugne the John Galts and Hero Jobs Creators who need more tax cuts!!"The OWS says have the government that is in bed with the Corporatists wrecking the middle class fix the problem. "Only government can save us!!" Ignoring that the government is no longer answerable to lowly voters, but Goldman Sachs and company.

The "Occupy" crowd's answer is to trust government with more power. They want to give government the power to pick life's winners and losers based on loyalty to collective ideals, loyalty to democrats, loyalty to the democrat money laundering schemes that abuse tax payers, loyalty to the use of lies and deception for personal gain, progressive purity; and the old, failed, tired ideologies of communism and socialism. Sprinkle some conspiracies and "blame the jews" - and you've got OWS disease. They wish to install a government entity that doles out "fairness".

mcenroe - "All that diagram really shows is that business and government congregate where the money and power concentrate."

Which, BTW, is a cabal, if the level of collusion is high enough. And the cabal subverts democracy and works against the masses.

I believe it is a mistake to dismiss either the Tea Party or its more Left antipode, OSW as ignorant rural white racists or filthy old hippies small in numbers. We will face some horrific cutbacks in entitlements, long years of trying to claw back jobs we gave away to free traders, globalists, and "kill a factory for the higher profits we can get putting it in Pakistan" - outsourcers.Both movements will strengthen, and the extremists in both camps will want to go with largely unqualified "everyman" opportunists (who are secretly backed by big money people) that channel their anger.

Tea Partiers won't like it because it it simply demonstrates we are all Americans and if we can get our heads out of dark nether regions and get together we could actually accomplish something positive.

Some TPs want to think Daddy Warbucks will save us and some Liberals think that Uncle Sam will save us, isn't about time to come to the realization that they are one in the same and that no one will save us BUT ourselves?

If there is a small segment of society that would knowingly harm another larger segment of society, the larger segment has the sheer numbers to affect change.

Here is California's Central Valley, it is clear that the agent of the principal local economic disaster is NOT some narrow clique that we can all get together to defeat if we only realized our essential unity -

The cause of our oppression is YOU. You urban romantics use your political power to trample us with your environmental laws, which you will not compromise no matter how much suffering you cause. From where I sit, YOU are our evil opponents, and our only salvation is your defeat. You will certainly not unite with us. You despise and hate us, and at this point your hate is returned, with interest.

Leftist Richard Barnet, founder of the Inst for Policy Studies, posited decades ago there has been a migration of power to the government, while there has been a migration of influence to corporations.

OWS theory seems to reflect the simplistic notion that the only pernicious influence on govenment is outside corporate interests, and through better democracy a bigger, more powerful government can further reduce the influence of corpoartions and thereby better serve human needs and aspirations. In other words, the perfectability of big government as a kind of democratically instilled perpetual motion machine.

Tea Partiers believe that there are myriad interest groups (both inside and outside of government) seeking to influence the government; that democracy is not perfectable and will always be flawed; that rather than curtail pernicious influence, a larger government increases the returns on investment of seeking that influence; that the cost of a larger government burdens the productive sector such that incentives to produce more income become distorted; and that a smaller, more efficient goverment is actually better capable of protecting societal interests while allowing individuals to better serve their human needs and aspirations.

Is it any wonder OWS is embraced by callow youth and exploited by their entrenched elders?

I heard most of the homeless people in J's town kick his ass @ chess. One of many reasons he's so angry. He does well @ the beginning of matches but then those pieces start talking to him, telling him to make stupid moves and to speak like The Riddler.

Actually, the Tea Partiers are wound about the bailouts, not regulations favoring the corporations, so the diagrammer better go back to Intro to Discrete Math.

And, if the corporations lobbied for stuff like Dodd-Frank (they didn't), it certainly blew up in their faces.

Mitochondri-Allie said...

Tea Partiers won't like it because it it simply demonstrates we are all Americans and if we can get our heads out of dark nether regions and get together we could actually accomplish something positive.

Some TPs want to think Daddy Warbucks will save us and some Liberals think that Uncle Sam will save us, isn't about time to come to the realization that they are one in the same and that no one will save us BUT ourselves?

If there is a small segment of society that would knowingly harm another larger segment of society, the larger segment has the sheer numbers to affect change.

The one-celled organism makes any number of logic errors here, the greatest of which is that anybody counts him and his friends as Americans.

When our county was attacked in 911, does anyone here suppose it was only Conservatives that joined the military? When one has their collective heads so deeply up their ass to not consider their political opposites real Americans they fall into the Sarah Palin trap of stupidity and futile hatred.

What I don't understand is, why the geniuses currenly inhabiting 1600 Pennsylvania Ave can't understand the opportunity that this provides them, and act accordingly. They could put forth reform initiatives in a way that would receive broad support, while remain totally within their party principles. (Their stated principles, anyway.)

Are they really that sold out to the elite progressive 1%ers and the financial cartel not to do so?

As always, the question is limits. Corporations have the power of the Mass Culture milieu. A certain amount of government regulation is desirable to prevent young kids from being turned into completely mind-washed consumers. Or is it?

the street scum's you, Spinelli yid aka Byro the t-shirt vendor. And I imagine the transients in Sac town have to teach you the moves don't they loser --"what's the horsie do, byro". You don't know Ruy Lopez from yr crackpipe.

Up there in NY, at the original OWS, they seem to be having some financial issues. Seems the "finance committee" of the OWS is not handing out money to the other "committees" who claim to need it. There is half a million in the treasury and a fight is brewing. The "comfort committee" needs the money, wants the money. And the "finance committee" is making them fill out a form, a request for money, saying why they need it. The "comfort committee" is pissed.

Yep, they are fighting about money in the old commune up there in the park in NYC hard by evil Wall Street. The "finance committee" won't let loose of the "funding" that the other "committees" need so much, want so much. It is coming to a bad and bitter end. There are, reports say, a lot of people there at OWS that are not giving back. Odd, that.

When our county was attacked in 911, does anyone here suppose it was only Conservatives that joined the military? When one has their collective heads so deeply up their ass to not consider their political opposites real Americans they fall into the Sarah Palin trap of stupidity and futile hatred

OF COURSE and I remember all the Hollywood and Democratic elite lining up behind George Bush...oh WAIT...that didn't happen did it?

Oh Mito you'd have a better chance if you hadn't linked to that crazy screed/declaration yesterday...because that screed is JUST the same set of solutions the TEA Party advocates.

Some of the occupiers appear to be mooching off the money the "finance committee" scoops up from the money raisers who mooch it off others. The "finance committee" rules. At least until the other "committees" decided not to hand over the money they mooch from people on the street to buy "comfort items" for all. It is so very complicated to the good people in the OWS. It is going to come to a bad and bitter end.

OF COURSE and I remember all the Hollywood and Democratic elite lining up behind George Bush...oh WAIT...that didn't happen did it?

Actually, it did. Look at the polls for Bush after 9/11 and the Congressional votes in favor of the authorization of use of military force in Afghanistan. At the end of 2001 and in early 2002, there wasn't a lot of opposition to what Bush was doing, other than from the professional protester crowd (which includes Michael Moore). The push towards war in Iraq, among other things, changed all that.

The weather bodes poorly for OWS. Showers building midweek, dropping nighttime temperatures will challenge the "here forever" components of OWS. As the weak depart the value of the cash in the "finance committee" coffers will have a higher per occupier appeal. The rougher elements have doubtless figured this out. Rougher and tougher they will end with the money.

somefeller: I don't recall Hollywood lining up behind the President and I certainly can't remember any films devoted to the triumph of the West. You cannot conflate national polls with the actual performance of Hollywood.

Umm, Anne? Some pretty nasty posts are popping up. Perhaps it is therapeutic to leave them as an abject lesson revealing who we are dealing with in modern political discourse. But they do distract from your forum. Thank you for hosting.

Since the government is the only one with actual power, corporations having only power sold to them by government, the diagram reveals which side is more rational.

This is a distinction without a difference. Corporations (or wealthy individuals, for that matter) don't have political power dropped upon them, they seek them. That's the way things have always been, whether it's the East India Company or Facebook. That's one of the perks of being rich. Only a naif is surprised by this or acts as though the only power-seeking parties are the ones in government.

somefeller: I don't recall Hollywood lining up behind the President and I certainly can't remember any films devoted to the triumph of the West. You cannot conflate national polls with the actual performance of Hollywood.

Well, for one thing, it's rather difficult to come up with a film a few weeks after a terrorist attack. But I do recall seeing (just off the top of my head) lots of Hollywood celebrities volunteering for the telethon that soon followed 9/11, celebrities volunteering for USO tours (even more alternative figures like Henry Rollins), the big concert for firefighters that The Who headlined, and a US flag on the cover of Rolling Stone right after 9/11 (the flag was Jann Wenner's lapel pin, apparently). So while there may not be a definitive poll of Hollywood, it's pretty clear support was there early on, aside from the members of Rage Against The Machine, I suppose.

I don't agree that there's an overlap. OWS wants to destroy business because they are envious that some have gotten rich. They want the government to own everything and redistribute it equitably.

TP wants to shrink the government because they argue that the government cannot innovate or make any decent products or profit, and thus the whole economy collapses if the government gets into control.

OWS wants Mother Russia with Obama as Stalin, while the Tea Party wants Coolidge: "The business of America is business."

Somefeller,I disagree. Exxon doesn't have guns. The government does. Defang exxon (or corporate America in general) and my property rights and liberties remain at risk from the government. Not the same the other way around. That is a distinction with a difference (though I recognize a delicate balance of government power is necessary to secure my rights).

Somefeller. Post 9-11 hollywood would compare very unfavorably with hollywood post Pearl Harbor. Pro-American movies began production almost immediately. Face it, Hollywood in the modern era is not in the least willing to be "patriotic" in the old way, just in the new ironic way that undercuts traditions.

Unless the "occupy" movement intends to introduce a new society (i.e., revolution), then it is imperative that corruption of authoritarian interests be corrected first and foremost.

Crimes committed by authoritarian interests represents the highest form of corruption, and as they are funded through involuntary exploitation (e.g., taxes, incarceration), they must be held accountable.

Corruption in the exception should be dealt with through the rule of law. Unless we correct corruption in all branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) of our government, then there is no hope of realizing a proper and sustainable correction anywhere in our society.

A selective rule of law is the means by which corruption is enabled. Whether it is illegal aliens displacing American men, women, and children; creative accounting schemes; or outright fraud; is irrelevant.

In fiscal 2011, the government (federal, state, and local) spent $7 trillion, which is nearly 1/2 of our national GDP. Of that, several trillion was accomplished through accumulation of debt. It was the latter which has introduced massive distortions of the market, which demand progressive involuntary exploitation of taxpayers to compensate.

The bottom-line is that government conducts its operations through involuntary exploitation. This form of coerced redistributive change must be done responsibly and the authoritarian interests must be held accountable for malfeasance when it occurs.

Corruption in the exception should be corrected through the rule of law. The civil servants, elected and otherwise, are only corrupted through their conscious effort.

So, the "occupy" movement is both right and wrong. Their priorities are wrong.

N.N. The OWS folks are getting a lesson in corrruption as they fight over the use of the funds collected for their maintainance and amusement. Without a printing press the OWS must survive on what they mooch and the mooched funds have to be carefully doled out to fellow moochers who have not collected their own funds. Labor and capital and the non-contributors are in a standoff. Rain coming later in the week. Rain and cold. It is a parable is it not?

Somefeller. Post 9-11 hollywood would compare very unfavorably with hollywood post Pearl Harbor. Pro-American movies began production almost immediately. Face it, Hollywood in the modern era is not in the least willing to be "patriotic" in the old way, just in the new ironic way that undercuts traditions.

American society has changed a lot since the 1940s, mostly for the better. So naturally the artistic response to current events will differ. While I'd agree there were more patriotic films in the 1940s, the nature of the war was somewhat different. And it should be pointed out that the President during most of that war was FDR, who many conservatives then and now vilify as a liberal fascist big-government progressive, so perhaps conservatives shouldn't talk too much about being "patriotic" in the old way.

My experience of wealth and political power - in the US and abroad - Most companies would rather just be left alone to make money.

Sounds like your experience is limited. The companies that want to be left alone to make money usually discover at some point that they can make more money by getting involved in the political process. The idea that there is some pure-hearted private sector that doesn't interact with or influence government except for purely defensive purposes is ahistorical and naive.

Somefeller. Generally liberals believe the country we live in today is a lot worse than the country sixty years ago. Perhaps Hollywood simply follows, art simply follows, what the consumer, even the philistine consumer, wants. Who is President is irrelevant.

And it should be pointed out that the President during most of that war was FDR, who many conservatives then and now vilify as a liberal fascist big-government progressive, so perhaps conservatives shouldn't talk too much about being "patriotic" in the old way.

Um, but the country pulled together behind FDR to fight the war, did it not? Regardless of the fact that a lot of people didn't particularly care for his brand of domestic politics.

Mitochondri-Allie said..." I could hire one half of the working class to kill the other half", Jay Gould, Robber Baron.

10/23/11 1:39 PM

But he didn't. Now Stalin and Mao they managed to have an impressive record in killing. I trust corporations more than government, I understand their motives better. All they want is my money, not to rule my life.

The OWS is nothing more than a collection of losers, whiners,screw-ups and the self-important self entitled. I see a 49 out 57 state landslide next year.

Generally liberals believe the country we live in today is a lot worse than the country sixty years ago.

Wrong. Most liberals will say that America is a lot better now than it was sixty years ago, because of feminism, the civil rights movement and the other left-liberal causes that transformed America during those sixty years. If fact, one common conservative criticism of liberals is that they are overly critical of America's past and judge that past by today's standards. That criticism has some merit, but it's inconsistent with the idea that liberals liked America better sixty years ago.

Um, but the country pulled together behind FDR to fight the war, did it not? Regardless of the fact that a lot of people didn't particularly care for his brand of domestic politics. Doesn't this kind of undermine the point you're trying to make?

No. It simply shows that dissent existed back then as well as now. So the good old days weren't always good and even in that most unified of eras, the old style of patriotism had room for dissent about how the government was being led. But a lot fewer people percentagewise opposed FDR's domestic policies than Bush's, so that internal division was much smaller. That speaks well for FDR.

This is a distinction without a difference. Corporations (or wealthy individuals, for that matter) don't have political power dropped upon them, they seek them. That's the way things have always been, whether it's the East India Company or Facebook. That's one of the perks of being rich. Only a naif is surprised by this or acts as though the only power-seeking parties are the ones in government.

Yes. Obviously. This is exactly the argument for limited government. Make it less worthwhile to hold the reigns of power. Make what those reigns control less powerful.

(The Crypto Jew) Wrong. Most liberals will say that America is a lot better now than it was sixty years ago, because of feminism, the civil rights movement and the other left-liberal causes that transformed America during those sixty years

Oh Puh-Leese try to tell lies small enough YOU’LL believe them. Christmas, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving constantly we are told Amerikkka is founded upon Racism, Genocide, Sexism, and Capitalism-exploitation of the Poor, Womyn, and People of Colour! Amerikkka as the Primary Capitalist-Imperialist Power, Amerikkka is the “Focus of Evil” in the Modern World.

No. It simply shows that dissent existed back then as well as now

Again Puh-leese…please point out the plays and movies about Assassinating FDR! Please point out to me where the likes of Mencken and others called FDR a “War Criminal”, called for his arrest, asked General Marshall to arrest him? Point out to me how “The Sands of Iwo Jima,” “Back to Bataan,” “They Were Expendable,” “The Fighting Seabees,” or “Wake Island” are in ANY way comparable to “The Valley Elah,” “Stop Loss,” “The Green Zone” or “redacted.” Nice try though.

My experience is personal and goes back a long, long way. And across several countries.

The vast majority of businesses, everywhere, see the government mainly as a source of trouble, not of opportunity. In most cases these days they only speak to representatives of the government if they absolutely have to, with tremendous backup and documentation, with legal representation. The general atmosphere is fear, even terror.

The common case of a company getting involved with the government is Microsoft. They initially ignored the need to lobby and build relationships, as Bill Gates admitted back in the 90's. And then they got an antitrust suit. Now they have lobbyists.

The Tea Party desire limited, accountable government. Gosh how radical.

Leftists or "OWS" do not trust the individual; they trust big government and want to stop free-enterprise. Government knows best.We tax payers were forced FORCED to bailout Fannie and Freddie – the ultimate crony capitalism. Do the OWS folks care?

Teacher's unions funnel millions upon millions of dollars to democrats – and our public schools are broke. Wait – hit up the tax payer again! Great! Daddy warbucks is a jerk and he isn't paying his fair share. Funny how the pro-dem/pro-OWS crowd can't help themselves to a heaping pile of class warfare to help make the democrat's BS point. OWS crowd: you do realize you are democrat pawns, right?

Wrong. Most liberals will say that America is a lot better now than it was sixty years ago...

By any objective standard you would be right. Things are much better from a liberal standpoint than they were sixty years ago, but liberals cannot permit themselves to be objective. Admitting that the real hurdles have been surmounted takes away their reason for being. Where they once fought real injustice, racial and gender discrimination, they now are reduced to apoplexy over a distasteful word painted on a rock. Minorities who want to work do not face economic discrimination because of their skin color, but they are still told that they are being oppressed by the Jesse Jacksons and Cornel Wests, who are nothing without the perception of racism serving to bolster their social position and bank accounts.

Joe: Thanks for proving my point. If liberals are overly critical of America's past, they aren't likely to think that America was a better country sixty years ago. The two concepts are inconsistent with one another. Also, like I said, the culture of the early 1940s and the experience of WWII was somewhat different to today's culture and America's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the movies will differ. And you really shouldn't end your comments with phrases like "nice try though". You don't have the brains or status to pull that off effectively.

Buwaya: Fair points, but the vast majority of businesses aren't the ones that are big enough to seek out government favors and manipulate the system for their advantage. Those firms are the ones that people are talking about when it comes to discussions of corporations having power, at least some of which is backed up by government action. Also, one often finds that in countries where some businesses live in abject terror of their governments, other businesses are quite happy with that system and participate in that bullying when it suits them. The public and private sectors don't have very clearly defined borders in such places.

Tyrone: I think we actually are in more agreement than disagreement on your points. Though I'd suggest to you that most liberals are pretty well-aware that things are much better in this country than they were sixty years ago. Some people (both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue) won't admit that, but such people prefer to live in the past and nurse their grievances from that past.

Nice try again, Somefeller…and nice touch with the argumentum ad hominem…So basically you are saying Sands of Iwo Jima = Redacted? Nice try…from US troops fighting bravely and a movie portraying the US troops as murderous rapists….And tell me again, how often “Conservatives” called for FDR’s arrest…and tell me how again US Liberals loved America post-1945, with the “Beat” Generation and then the New, New Left post-1968…Because I remember oh so well the November 1944 Thanksgiving Speeches lamenting the White Genocide of Amerikkka’s Indigenous Peoples.

(The Crypto Jew) Though I'd suggest to you that most liberals are pretty well-aware that things are much better in this country than they were sixty years ago. Some people (both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue) won't admit that, but such people prefer to live in the past and nurse their grievances from that past

Oh yes, “No, not G#d Bless America, no G*d D@mn America!” Or how about “America’s chickensssssss are coming home to roost.”

Maybe the rank-and-file liberals, the good people you and I work with, would cheerfully admit that things are better. But they are still willing to be whipped up by the liberal power elites that have a vested interest, a financial interest, in maintaining a war footing. OWS is a perfect example-- Obama lauds them, Bloomberg enables them, Sarandon encourages them, millionaires all.

Joe: FDR was vilified by his opponents as a fascist, a communist and any number of other calumnies during his day. I'm not aware of any major opposition figure calling for his arrest, but it wouldn't surprise me if some more agitated Liberty League types would say such things. Also, I see you are having a frothing fit, citing various examples from the fringe that don't say much about mainstream American liberalism. Most liberals, for example, will enjoy Thanksgiving with their families. Hopefully you'll be able to do the same, if you aren't committed somewhere for your own safety.

Tyrone: I'd suggest to you that there also is a conservative power elite that has a vested financial interest in keeping its activists on constant war footing as well. Just listen to Mark Levin or Glenn Beck on any given day. Such is the nature of politics, show biz and where the two overlap.

Joe: FDR was vilified by his opponents as a fascist, a communist and any number of other calumnies during his day.

No one, as far as I know, has suggested that FDR didn't face any domestic political opposition. Or disputed the fact that "dissent existed" back in the olden days. Those are strawmen of your own making.

The issue is whether FDR's political opponents worked to undermine America's war effort, as so many of Bush's opponents did with regard to Iraq. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

(The Crypto Jew) Also, I see you are having a frothing fit, citing various examples from the fringe that don't say much about mainstream American liberalism. Most liberals, for example, will enjoy Thanksgiving with their families. Hopefully you'll be able to do the same, if you aren't committed somewhere for your own safety

Oh the old “No TRUE Scotsman” argument…only TRUE Scotsman think your way or True Liberals…but thank you for putting Michael Moore, Medea Benjamin, and the Hollywood Elite, and most faculty lounges in the US in the “fringe”…they ARE of course, but you guyz seldom like to admit.

Maguro: The issue is whether FDR's political opponents worked to undermine America's war effort, as so many of Bush's opponents did with regard to Iraq. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

You are assuming that Bush's political opponents were acting to undermine America's war effort. They would say they were simply criticizing his war policies for the benefit of the country, but many conservatives (then and now) liked to label such dissent as undermining the war effort. As it turns out, many if not most of the criticisms of Bush's Iraq war policies turned out to have merit. Also, it should be noted, a lot of FDR's opponents claimed he knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen. Sort of the Truthers of their era. I don't think that exactly was helpful to the war effort.

Joe: No, I'm just pointing out the realities of American politics and ideology versus the way it works inside your head. Which I suspect is both an empty and loud place.

(The Crypto Jew) Joe: No, I'm just pointing out the realities of American politics and ideology versus the way it works inside your head. Which I suspect is both an empty and loud place

Oh goodie, no EVIDENCE or argument, merely invective…I must be hitting home. Drive Somefeller, continue on and explain to us how Redacted = Wake Island…please point out to me prominent media personalities that talked about FDR as a War Criminal and please point out to me where media figures called on Marshall to arrest and depose him….I’ll wait. It oughtn’t be hard…I mean just point out Clark Gable or Betty Grable or the NYT calling for US withdrawal from France

(The Crypto Jew) but many conservatives (then and now) liked to label such dissent as undermining the war effortKos: “Screw them” in re: the death in Fallujah of Blackwater employees…Michael Moore: “They are the Minutemen and they are going to win” in re: the “Insurgents” in Iraq “Bush Lied, People Died” yes all merely criticisms designed to aid the war effort…

You really ought to check out Zombietime and his coverage of the anti-war movement on the Left Coast…just chock-a-block full of constructive criticism of the US efforts in the Middle East….

somefeller: "Also, it should be noted, a lot of FDR's opponents claimed he knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen. Sort of the Truthers of their era. I don't think that exactly was helpful to the war effort."

It is absurd to think that the insignificant number of people who held this belief in any way impacted the war effort. And had the NYT reported anything like what they have reported in the way of leaked information regarding the Bush war effort, FDR would have had them shot as decisively as he incarcerated Japanese Americans.

You are assuming that Bush's political opponents were acting to undermine America's war effort.

A great many of them were openly rooting for an American defeat in Iraq, there is no doubt about that. I haven't forgotten all that just yet. Moveon.Org, John Murtha, the NYT, Spicoli, Michael Moore and Hollywood leftist crowd, etc.

Even more contemptible were the war cheerleaders turned defeatist pundit set - Tom Friedman, Andrew Sullivan, Fareed Zakaria. They were all about liberating Iraq but balied at the first sign of trouble. No one told them that people occaisionally get killed in wars! Fuck them all.

Joe: I didn't claim that Redacted = Wake Island as a film. I simply pointed out that the culture of that era and the way World War II was looked at during that era was quite different than the culture of our era or how the wars of the past decade have been viewed by many, even those who supported them. Sorry if that point was too subtle for you, Joe. Also, I would agree that one didn't find major media personalities coming out against World War II in the same way one saw them coming out against the Iraq War. That's because they were different wars. In fact, as anyone with a passing knowledge of American history would know, World War II was unique in the level of unanimity of support for the war. It was a lot easier to find people speaking up against the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War One and the Vietnam War than World War II. Also, as I pointed out, most of the people you are citing as big important liberal voices (Medea Benjamin, et al) are left of the Democratic mainstream and would themselves eschew the title of mainstream liberal. But I know it's hard to keep up with all that when you are in full froth. Perhaps you should change your underwear and drink some hot tea to calm down.

E.M. Davis: Stop Loss. Redacted. Lions for Lambs. Syriana. In the Valley of Elah. Brothers. These were all such huge hits at the box office, I'm surprised you didn't remember them! What the market wants my ass.

The comment you cite was discussing Hollywood in general, not specific films. Of course Hollywood comes out with bombs. Particularly when they do take their eye off the market and decide to go overboard with the politics. That's probably why those films bombed and one doesn't see a rush to create Iraq War films.

(The Crypto Jew) it sharply reduced its activities and disbanded in 1940.Oh so your “evidence” of dissent was DISBANDED IN 1940….please continue to make your argument, it’s becoming amusing or interesting.

Joe, now you're quoting (in italics) comments that aren't even in the thread. I really have you in full froth. How funny and sad. Anyway, it's been fun toying with you, but I need to get to bed. Busy week ahead.

(The Crypto Jew) are left of the Democratic mainstream and would themselves eschew the title of mainstream liberal. But I know it's hard to keep up with all that when you are in full froth. Perhaps you should change your underwear and drink some hot tea to calm downSo that would be why Code Pink got admission to Senate Hearings and Michael Moore was a guest at the 2004 Democratic Convention…I see “not mainstream”..continue on….Oh and so now you walk back, WWII does NOT Equal today…Oh I see…once you have been found out in an indefensible position, please move the goal posts…

(The Crypto Jew) Joe, now you're quoting (in italics) comments that aren't even in the thread. I really have you in full froth. How funny and sad. Anyway, it's been fun toying with you, but I need to get to bed. Busy week aheadThat would be the quote from Wiki concerning the “Liberty League”…I thought you’d want to learn something about the “dissent” you quoted about FDR…

I hope your busy week involves learning a little US History…and search the Web for some nice images of the “dissent” from the Anti-War Movement and how it was merely a critique.

So that would be why Code Pink got admission to Senate Hearings and Michael Moore was a guest at the 2004 Democratic Convention

One last comment before going to bed - lots of people get admitted to Senate hearings and get passes to political conventions, including lots of odd or extreme people. If you knew much about politics, you'd know that. But that fact means you might get a chance to go to a hearing or convention, Joe. It's easy to get in, even you could do it!

(The Crypto Jew) One last comment before going to bed - lots of people get admitted to Senate hearings and get passes to political conventions, including lots of odd or extreme people. If you knew much about politics, you'd know that. But that fact means you might get a chance to go to a hearing or convention, Joe. It's easy to get in, even you could do itYeah LOTSA folks….Run away, I mean Run Along, then….

The only difference between most big businesses and smaller ones - anywhere - is that the bigger ones are better able to protect themselves from the rapist politicians and the malevolent bureaucrats. They have the economies of scale to lobby and to comply/litigate with regulators.

I have a lot of experience with corrupt countries - I have done considerable business in Asia and lived there for an extended period. There is absolutely no difference, these days, in the government-business relationship between most Asian countries and the US, except that these days in the US we have a great deal more to fear from the lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats. I would be much safer doing business almost anywhere in Asia, with just a couple of exceptions, than in California.

Your tribe - the liberals/democrats - is attacking ALL business, small, large, innocent or corrupt with its wholly owned pet, the regulatory state. It is a mindless, trampling beast. It is so mindless that often the beast even tramples itself, absurdly getting in its own way. This disastrous legal/political/bureaucratic system is yours. For the rest of us to survive, it must die.

Whether it's the swastika or the hammer and sickle, the notion that if you kill off a bunch of bad people, or force them to stop doing what they're doing, you can have the Garden of Eden at Zuccotti Park is the perennial fantasy of the atheist birdbrains.

The truth is that we are outside of the G of E and can't get back in, and Adam was given 900 years of hard labor for eating the apple. (Well, it was a life sentence, but the text says he lived for 930 years.)

The psychotics at Zuccotti Park believe that if they could just get rid of some evil 1% or seize their funds they could all be living high off the hog.

If you get rid of the successful entrepreneurs (our truly great poets), then we will have killed the geese that lay the golden eggs because they weren't laying them fast enough.

I don't see how the Wall St. people can do their jobs well with all that drumming and chanting and hatefulness. All I want is for them to all get super super super rich so that the tax receipts trickle down thorugh Suny into my wallet. Go, Wall St.!

The difference is that the government is spending us and our children and grandchildren into bankruptcy. It is irresponsibly living way, WAY beyond our means. It's not just the SIZE of government that's the problem; it's the SPENDING and the resultant $14 trillion in DEBT that our country owes, with more being racked up every day as our politicians slide our tax dollars to their cronies under the table.